Bachmann announce Class 117 and Class 121 at Collectors Club event

[robertcwp]

I share others' views on the roof ribs. The roofs look too smooth. Surely they could have printed something if nothing else? Otherwise, the models are excellent apart from the visual impact of the chunky couplings on the green 117. They are less of an issue in my view on those with gangways. The couplings are a bit fiddly but I don't think they are any worse than the Rapido APT-E or Hornby 4-Vep. I found it best to couple upside down with the models on a sheet of bubble-wrap. Uncoupling is best done on the track using the tool supplied to wedge open the hook then prise apart the couplings with the aid of a small screwdriver. Fortunately, I can leave mine coupled most of the time. I found one wheelset on the motor second was loose but that was easily fixed, as were the back-to-backs, which were a bit tight. 

 

Here are two videos from test runs this evening:

 

https://youtu.be/4Po5-AQlpt8

 

https://youtu.be/zXUDD_lQRdg

 

I shall test the blue/grey ones another time.

[Clearwater]

If I was looking to renumber one of these, what’s the best source of new transfers?  Would want to go for one of the Birmingham area units.

 

thanks

 

david 

[Gwiwer]

The green and GW150 ones have been tested; the b/g awaits tomorrow.  

 

GW150 ran fine straight from the box with all lights working and switched as per instructions.  2-car, 3-car and 4-car operation is all perfectly smooth and responsive.  10/10. 

Green 117 ran fine out of the box but the 121 was tricky to rail and kept falling off.  I am aware of one case of potentially incorrect back-to-backs on this model via a Facebook group so anticipating that problem I turned it over and found both the trailing-end wheel sets required re-seating in their clips.  Not a manufacturing nor a quality-control issue but in all likelihood simply a bump in transit causing them to dislodge.  They went back in easily and all is well.  Again 2, 3 and 4-car formations run perfectly.  

 

Matters arising:-

 

The green 117 has no head / tail marker lights (which is correct; an oil lamp was placed on the bracket at the rear and with nothing to warn of the train's approach) so the two switches for these lights do nothing.  But the green 121 has head and tail marker lights and I query whether that is correct or not for a unit of the same era.  The micro-switches do their job on those but to match the 117 I have them turned off.

 

I don't know what colour the inter-car buffer beams were when delivered; the red ones on the 117 don't feel right but I will bow to brains and references far better than my youthful recollections.  If necessary a decent amount of weathering could see those areas blackened.  

 

The destination panels seem to be recessed too far and are fitted vertically; they were flush with the angled windscreen in reality.  The thickness of the glazing makes accurate representation hard but not beyond the realms of possibility.  I have yet to investigate how easy it might be to change the destination if required. 

 

The roof panels have already been commented upon; the smooth finish doesn't bother me much and will in any case be weathered in due course making it appear less like smooth shiny plastic.

 

The cab lights should not be on when in motion; in common with many other models these lights are on and, like most recent models, they can be switched off.  But switching the cab lights off also switches off the saloon lights so a modification might be required to achieve authenticity.    Having read the instructions correctly the two interior lighting switches are in fact to control cab and saloon lights independently so all is well.  

 

I find the couplers are not intrusive even on the non-gangwayed green unit but I do find them fussy and delicate.  The simple power-bar coupler is said to be insufficiently robust and cannot carry all the functions required for a single-decoder DCC unit with twin motors.  Many of us still run DC and for us these couplers are over-specified and all the fine wiring adds to the cost.  

 

The couplers prevent the operation of hybrid formations which is a shame.  They do permit power-twin operation with the 117 trailer removed but not operation with a 121 replacing a 117 power car as occurred at times.  Nor is it possible to run a 121 bubble+trailer formation using the 117 DMS as a "powered" trailer.  

 

The trailer car for the green unit sits the other way round compared with the GW150 unit; the first class is adjacent to the DMBS on the former but to the DMS on the latter.  It is not possible to inadvertently couple the trailer "wrong way round" due to the directional couplers so at what point did the trailers become reversed on the real ones?  

 

The speedo cable is superbly represented and very flexible but I wonder how long it will last.  Time will tell.  

 

Overall am I happy?  Absolutely.  There are a few minor niggles and some questions to which I don't know the answers but these look like they should and offer a very high level of detail and performance.  Are they value for money?  They are not cheap for sure but taking account of the detail and quality I am happy that I paid a fair price.  

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Gwiwer
Updated a matter of fact

[wombatofludham]

According to this image on the Railcar site, the 121s were delivered with marker lights, as were, apparently, the last three Class 117 sets, so the Bachmann model is correct - although possibly less so if they show double red tail lights in green!

Railcar Website Class 121

[dibber25]

Yes, the Pressed Steel single-units all had marker lights from new. You could have double red tail lights on a green unit if staff ever bothered to put the red slides in place but in practice it was a lot easier to hang the lamp on  (as that was required anyway because BR didn't trust electric lights) rather than putting the red slides in. Presumably the change in orientation of the TC took place when gangways were fitted so that more second class passengers (in the DMS) had access to the toilet. Those in the MBS presumably didn't have access to the loo because they would have needed to pass through the guard's compartment. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by dibber25

[Mark]

5 hours ago, dibber25 said:

Yes, the Pressed Steel single-units all had marker lights from new. You could have double red tail lights on a green unit if staff ever bothered to put the red slides in place but in practice it was a lot easier to hang the lamp on  (as that was required anyway because BR didn't trust electric lights) rather than putting the red slides in. Presumably the change in orientation of the TC took place when gangways were fitted so that more second class passengers (in the DMS) had access to the toilet. Those in the MBS presumably didn't have access to the loo because they would have needed to pass through the guard's compartment. 

I used to travel on these every day. I don’t ever remember not being able to walk through the luggage van to get to the centre car.

 

Mark

[robertcwp]

First class towards the motor brake second seems to have been the more common arrangement early on and at least into the blue era, so unlikely to be anything to do with gangways being fitted (most if not all had gangways when in blue livery).

 

This 6-car set is a mix of TC orientation but the leading one is a 118:

 

W51319_WhiteWaltham_31-1-73 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

121s had the marker lights from new:

W55035_Abingdon by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

[Zunnan]

8 hours ago, dibber25 said:

Presumably the change in orientation of the TC took place when gangways were fitted so that more second class passengers (in the DMS) had access to the toilet. Those in the MBS presumably didn't have access to the loo because they would have needed to pass through the guard's compartment. 

 

Passing through the guards compartment was never an issue when I was riding these daily, on particularly overcrowded services the guards compartment often became standing room. Quite often I'd prefer to ride in the guards compartment and chat with the guard on my way to school. The only time accessing toilets was an issue was when a 121 was substituted or added to strengthen, or the train was formed of motor vehicles with no trailer.

 

Speaking of school runs and toilets in 117s...The school time services out of Blake Street of an afternoon would also frequently have the toilets well and truly decommissioned by Wylde Green. I remember one service in particular having to be stopped by Chester Road because of a fire in the toilets, which was handy because I got off there every day any way.

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, dibber25 said:

Yes, the Pressed Steel single-units all had marker lights from new. You could have double red tail lights on a green unit if staff ever bothered to put the red slides in place but in practice it was a lot easier to hang the lamp on  (as that was required anyway because BR didn't trust electric lights) rather than putting the red slides in. Presumably the change in orientation of the TC took place when gangways were fitted so that more second class passengers (in the DMS) had access to the toilet. Those in the MBS presumably didn't have access to the loo because they would have needed to pass through the guard's compartment. 

The red slides were used a bit (possibly unofficialy?) but were very quickly banned and an oil lamp was required (just as had happened on the GWR cars before the war).  The reason for using ordinary oil tail lamps was the question of battery life because they could run down quite quickly with interior lights on etc when the engines weren't running and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was what had been found on the GWR cars.  Oddly it was also a potential problem on Eurostar sets because prior to various changes to the circuitry it was reckoned the tail light on those would go out in c.3 hours with the batteries at certain (permissible in traffic) levels of charge.  I think it was probably the same thought which kept BR off using integral electric tail lamps for many years.

 

And - as others have said - no problem with passengers going through the van area to get to the toilets - it happened all the time.  Technically the van area only needed to kept locked when carrying mail and certain types of parcels traffic and of course by the time they were going into blue and being fitted with gangways a lot of that was disappearing or had already gone from local services.

[Gwiwer]

Thanks for the clarification on my several questions. 
 

Walking through the van was never an issue. The guard entered the passenger saloons at times to collect fares. 
 

As Mike says certain types of traffic had to be secured but the 117s were probably not the first choice for mails etc. There were dedicated non-passenger workings and good use was made of the diesel parcel vans (as produced superbly by Heljan) so there was little need to lock up the brake vans. 
 

Both passenger and parcel trains also worked with “swingers” - a van attached to the back which could be locked if required - and these made intermediate station calls. I suspect any “secure” traffic would be forwarded by one of these workings and not (unless no other option existed) by a passenger train without a swinger. 
 

A thought arises. I should test the new Bachmanns with a Heljan parcel car for compatibility. 

[Class 158 productions]

Recently got a few of my old Lima 117/118 conversions out, noticed they had roof ribs. Personally it doesn’t bother me, but I do wonder why it was omitted? 

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

Thanks for the clarification on my several questions. 
 

Walking through the van was never an issue. The guard entered the passenger saloons at times to collect fares. 
 

As Mike says certain types of traffic had to be secured but the 117s were probably not the first choice for mails etc. There were dedicated non-passenger workings and good use was made of the diesel parcel vans (as produced superbly by Heljan) so there was little need to lock up the brake vans. 
 

Both passenger and parcel trains also worked with “swingers” - a van attached to the back which could be locked if required - and these made intermediate station calls. I suspect any “secure” traffic would be forwarded by one of these workings and not (unless no other option existed) by a passenger train without a swinger. 
 

A thought arises. I should test the new Bachmanns with a Heljan parcel car for compatibility. 

Letter Mail traffic was very definitely carried on the Pressed Steel units in their early days. (long before the became 117s) being loaded to/unloaded from them at places like Abingdon, the Thames Valley stations between Reading and Didcot, Henley, Maidenhead np doubt Taplow and Burnham, Slough (mainly for loc al stations), Windsor, and probably,  West Drayton and probably Hayes & Southall.  It would have been difficult to move Letter Mail in any quantity on the Parcels cars as they were fairly busy with parcels traffic  but generally Parcels Trains were in any case not covered by the Letter Mail contract which referred very explicitly to passenger trains plus a few specific exceptions (the most interesting of which was a lorry - nowhere near the London Division of the WR - and it was a specified replacement for a narrow gauge passenger train).

 

BTW as far as the Western form of railwayese was concerned (and on most other Regions) a 'swinger' was a vehicle with an inoperative automatic brake  - so it wouldn't in any case have been permitted as tail traffuc behind a DMU

Edited June 26, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[cctransuk]

17 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

... the 121 was tricky to rail and kept falling off.  I am aware of one case of potentially incorrect back-to-backs on this model via a Facebook group so anticipating that problem I turned it over and found both the trailing-end wheel sets required re-seating in their clips.  Not a manufacturing nor a quality-control issue but in all likelihood simply a bump in transit causing them to dislodge.  They went back in easily and all is well.

 

Exactly the same on mine!

 

John Isherwood.

[Budgie]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

BTW as far as the Western form of railwayese was concerned (and on most other Regions) a 'swinger' was a vehicle with an inoperative automatic brake  - so it wouldn't in any case have been permitted as tail traffuc behind a DMU

 

How did they shunt the tail traffic from one end of the DMU to the other?

[Ian Hargrave]

36 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Exactly the same on mine!

 

John Isherwood.

 
Well then we’ve got a trend.Mine also and a pain to rail.Apparently according to Derails’ Little Dan a problem with newly released Bachmann 158’s also.Obviously the easiest of fixes but disconcerting at first.

 

[Class 158 productions]

12 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 
Well then we’ve got a trend.Mine also and a pain to rail.Apparently according to Derails’ Little Dan a problem with newly released Bachmann 158’s also.Obviously the easiest of fixes but disconcerting at first.

 

Had this issue on both my 117 and 2 158s, as you say disconcerting. Maybe the packaging? 

[wombatofludham]

8 hours ago, Zunnan said:

 

Passing through the guards compartment was never an issue when I was riding these daily, on particularly overcrowded services the guards compartment often became standing room. Quite often I'd prefer to ride in the guards compartment and chat with the guard on my way to school.

 

Veering off route for a moment, when I worked at Centro one year we did a publicity stunt for the "Don't Choke the City" which encouraged car drivers to try alternative transport.  Our "alternative" involved two members of staff dressed as a panto horse, drawing a rickshaw with the office's lightest "businessman" in it.  The rickshaw was waiting at the New Street enquiry office, but the panto horse had to get from King's Norton to New Street by train.  The service we caught was short formed and already full and standing, including the guard's van, by the time it got to King's Norton.  However, completely unfazed, the guard just opened the guard's van doors of the Class 117 forming the service as if a panto horse was a normal event on the Cross City.  Even more bizarre, no one looked up from their books or newspapers as the panto horse boarded. 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Budgie said:

 

How did they shunt the tail traffic from one end of the DMU to the other?

Very often they didn;t need to because it would be separately attached or detached at one end or other of the journey.  Worst problem would be at a terminus with no other engine about so teh simple answer was to run round.  If they couldn't run round they could always resort to pinch bars

 

I've twice travelled on DMUs conveying tail traffic - the first time was picking up a loaded Conflat at Churston.  the set set back into the dock siding to attach it and the station pilot removed it at Newton Abbot.  The other time - oddly also Conflats. but 2 in that instance - was between Par and Newquay and something else had shunted them into the branch platform at Par.  The load was definitely over maxiumum as we struggled up Luxulyan Bank at walking pace; the DMU no doubt ran round them at Newquay but I didn't stay to watch as I was late for evening meal at the guest house and had to run.

[Gwiwer]

4 hours ago, Budgie said:

 

How did they shunt the tail traffic from one end of the DMU to the other?

I have only ever seen a station pilot do it but as Mike says there were other ways.  

[Metr0Land]

117 with a tail load, which seems to have been less common than 121/122's?

 

W51354_Kennington_8-5-64 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

[The Stationmaster]

Although I've posted some of it before it might be useful here to give the information regarding WR total permitted tail loads which applied to the Pressed Steel units modelled by Bachmann.

 

SPC (aka Class 121) or Pressed Steel 3 car set (aka Class 117) running in its normal formation, i.e. Power Car/Trailer/Power Car

Max. total permitted tail load on gradients not exceeding 1in50 rising - 35 tons with all engines working.   On level track or falling gradients 35 tons was allowed when one engine was isolated.  Nil allowed on rising gradients with one engine (or two engines on a 3 car set) isolated.            (Incidentally the steepest part of Luxulyan Bank was 1 in 37 and there was nearly a mile at 1 in 39)

 

When running as power twin, or 2 SPCs coupled,  or two x 3 car sets coupled

Max total permitted trailing load on gradients not exceeding 1 in 50 rising - 70 tons with all engines working; 35 tons with one engine isolated; nil with two engines isolated.

Max total permitted loads on level track or falling gradients with one engine isolated - 70 tons; 35 tons with two engines isolated. 

 

The loads were increased in the event of 3x 3 car sets running coupled but I won't include that as it is probably unlikely on most if not all layouts (and who can afford something between £800 & 900 for three 3car sets? )

 

The loads for the Gloucester Parcels cars, which had 2 x 230 hp engines, were very different and on gradients not steeper than 1 in 40 rising they were allowed to take up to 64 tons of tail traffic provided the weight of the additional vehicle(s) plus the weight of the traffic loaded in them did not exceed 64 tons.  

 

The weight of parcels traffic was calculated on the basis of 1 ton per vehicle while the weight of fish traffic was calculated on the basis of 3 tons per vehicle.

Edited June 27, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[Phil Bullock]

Tail Load limit for Heljan Class 128 DPU: 30 vehicles 900 tons 

[Gwiwer]

4 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Tail Load limit for Heljan Class 128 DPU: 30 vehicles 900 tons 

I managed to start and haul 36 and it would have done more easily.  The limitation was the drag around the curves which caused derailments rather than power or rolling stock availability.  

[robertcwp]

Some more test runs, including the blue/grey ones today.

 

I coupled all four together and they seemed to run fine (almost £800 in one formation). The combination is unprototypical due to the difference in eras:

https://youtu.be/SspaOPkwwWA

 

Green and blue/grey ones passing:

https://youtu.be/XT5UQaFnFSA

 

Testing the blue/grey 117 as a 2-car unit:

https://youtu.be/OycVKDWNh2U

 

[Gwiwer]

3x3-car plus 3x1-car tested here all coupled with the bubblecars randomly placed in the train.  9 motors in all.  Morley Vortrak controller running DC.  Absolutely fine.  I couldn't give them much of a run as the layout is only about twice the length of that train but they were as good as a fully-consisted DCC set-up.